On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 09:19:37AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:54:32AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > Ah, sure, but see what happened last time this came up. > > > > And it would be hypocrit. The real issue is what do we want to do about > > non-free, not that we want to ammend the social contract. Without > > clarifying our position on this, the social contract GR will probably > > fail, and if it pass, it would be by fooling the voters about the real > > intentions of the GR, like Branden tried to do. > > Well, why not have a non-free GR, and add a social contract hostile > amendment, so that people can vote on both at once, and rank their > preferences appropriately?
Why ? let's not complicate things. The real issue, is what do we want to do about non-free, the rest is just administrative stuff, which means that things will just drag in length and nothing will happen. > I see no way that an informal poll has any bearing on who is a > hypocrite, or flushes out the intentions of people that propose things. What would be hypocrit is to do the social contract thingy without clearly saying what we are gona do about non-free. Once a decision is reached, even an informal one, it is clear what will hapen once the social-contract GR gets put to vote, and this will let people vote accrodying to this decision. Or let's just start with the vote about non-free, and worry about the social contract later. Something like : provided the social contract gets ammended, we would like to do ... blah blah ... about non-free. But let's stop discussing this in an empty way, and start a real vote. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
